Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
committee next week. also interestingly the cia last week did a background briefing and laid out their case their defense, if you will of what happened in the aftermath of the benghazi attack. really, they defended their own position, and it's not clear whether other members of the national security team tamron knew that was coming down. there has been a conflict between the cia's initial narrative and what they later learned and discussed and whether or not susan rice when she went out and was publicly criticized for what she said on the sunday morning talk shows, whether she was following the guidance, the talking points from the intelligence community. so i think that there is going to be some development at least to clarify later today what the status of david petraeus is what his intentions are, and how long he will stay with the administration. >> andrea we may get more information even within this hour. jay carney has his daily briefing and perhaps will offer answers to the questions regards david petraeus and his status. now to the other big story. president
it was investigating the director of the cia or the cia director came one their focus and scope, i believe at that time they had an absolute obligation to tell the president. not to protect david petraeus but to protect the president. >> joining any now is nabokov news chief andrea mitchell. let's start off with there's two lines of investigations we know could take place this week aalone. first, the hot one of the last couple of hours, especially on your show, who knew what, when, is how people like to put it. we heard from senator fine steen on your show regarding your concerns. >> her concerns and the concerns also as i understand it of the house republican chair mike rogers, a former fib agent himself is they were not told. they didn't get a heads-up from the fbi or the dni or the head of national intelligence, general clapper. they didn't get a heads-up from the nsc or the white house. the first thing they know on friday, general petraeus is resigning, and the president's accepting his resignation without knowing there's months and months of an investigation into a possible compromising of nationa
, if there was one, was by the cia and questions about the information given to susan rice. i find that they skirt around that. the other issue brought up regarding this meeting that was supposed to take place yesterday or briefing that senator mccain missed because there was a scheduling error. at the same time he was holding a news conference. this adds to the notion that this is about politics, even though he and his staff indicate there was a scheduling error as to why he would miss a briefing on benghazi and instead be holding a news conference. >> you know, i think it is pretty clear that this is politics. if you remember, again, when condoleezza rice was up for confirmation, she did grilled. she only, i think, got confirmed by 85 votes, 15 democrats voted against her. they had legitimate concerns about her in some of the intelligence failures around iraq. but i do think it's going to be difficult if the president decides to nominate susan rice, and we don't know that he will, but it seems that he was certainly coming to her defense in a vigorous way. i don't see necessarily how the republic
hill. this team she's meeting with connecticut senator joseph lieberman. earlier rice and aktding cia director mike morrell met with john mccain, lindsey graham and kelly ayotte over what rice knew the in the days after the deadly consulate attack in benghazi. all three claim to be more troubled after this meeting. >> we're significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before that the 16th september explanation about how four americans died by ambassador rice, i think, does not do justice to the reality at the time. >> clearly the impression that was begin, the information begin to the american people was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely, it was wrong. >> and within the past hour the white house once again defended ambassador rice. >> focus on some might say obsession made on comments made on sunday shows seems, to me, and to many, to be misplaced. >> and the ambassador herself made this statement only a short time ago. it read in part, quote, i appreciated the opportunity
be kept fully informed. he's giving his own opinion. as a former cia director. if they found out the director was having an affair, the committee should have been informed. but the view is there's a narrow rule about when you notify congressional committees of investigations and they felt this didn't fit. >> thank you very much. great pleasure having you on with the latest information. let me bring in msnbc analyst general barry mccaffery. thank you for your time. let me get your first reaction. yesterday we were still scratching our heads over general petraeus, how could this happen. and you wake up this morning and now general allen a part of an investigation. what's your reaction to this one-two punch? >> well, you know, general petraeus i have known him since he was 25. he's probably the most brilliant commander we have produced since world war ii. so it's a damaging blow to national security to lose him in this position. he had to resign, risk-taking behavior is probably unacceptable by anybody. >> when you say risk-taking, is it the possibly exposure of his e-mails? you're
with speaker boehner coming u. don't be sorry. you've done nothing. former cia director david petraeus is arriving home after a hearing on capitol hill appearing for the first time since his resignation over the affair. the general testified about what led to the deadly attack in benghazi. >> he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement, and that is not my recollection of what he told us. >> we'll get a live report from capitol hill. plus, former mississippi governor haley barbour's shall i say unique take on what republicans need to do after losing the election. >> we've got to give our political organizational activity, you know, a very serious proctology exam. >> ouch. how easy will be it for republicans to fix their problem? i'll ask our political panel. you can join our conversation. you can find us at @tamron hall and @newsnation. think my pick for our friday song, i think. [ male announcer ] this is sheldon, whose long dy setting up the news starts with arthritis pain and a choice. take tylenol or take aleve, the #1 recommended pain reliever by orthopedic do
they did not reflect cia findings shortly after the attack that was a terrorist-related incident. on "meet the press" senate intelligence committee chairperson dianne feinstein defended the house against allegations it changed the script for plital purposes ahead of the election. >> this whole process is going to be checked out. we're going to find out who made changes in the original statement. until we do, i really think it's unwarranted to make accusations. >> and joining me now is rachel smolk and michael smirkonish and jimmy williams. ray she will, let me start off with you. i want to play a couple of other clips from "meet the press." let me play lindsey graham, because what we heard from senator feinstein was a response to some of the comments made particularly by mr. graha miker. >> would this white house mislead people about american security events? i think they might. when the bin laden raid occurred they leaked every detail. we heard details about classified information. to make this president look good, so if they would leak classified information to make him look good, would
then you don't know how our defense department thinks or our state department thinks or the cia thinks. their number one priority is obviously to protect american lives. that's what our job is. [ inaudible ] ed, i'll put forward every bit of information that we have. i can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were, doing whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. and that's the same order that i would give any time that i see americans are in danger, whether they're civilian or military because that's our number one priority. with respect to the issue of mandate, i've got one mandate. i've got a mandate to help middle class families and family that is are working hard to try to get in the middle class. that's my mandate. that's what the american people said. they said work really hard to help us. don't worry about the politics of it. don't worry about the party interests. don't worry about the special interests. just work really hard to see if you can help us get ahead because we're working really h
is head of the cia, has released some information that basically shows that a lot of american entities and agencies wanted to help their comrades. we have to conclude the investigation. we can't politicize it. i think it's important that we put aside the politics. the president wants to get all the facts of what happened, and you know, general petraeus, cia director, i think they're going to release as much as they can. but i was very concerned by the oversight committee in the house releasing names of some of our libyan assets that we had there very rapidly. so let's not politicize this issue. >> your words are probably comforting to some, but it is perhaps too late as this issue has been politicized at this point. four lives are host, and hopefully we will get all the details necessary at some point. thank you very much, sir. it's always a pleasure to have your insight. thank you. >> thank you. >>> atlanta's mayor will join us next. plus, the election aftermath, how "the daily beast" thinks the right will react if romney loses and how the left will react if president obama loses. fir
debate. so why aren't they saying, we need more information about the cia? we need to know where was the intelligence failure on the part of cia. that seems to me a very reasonable question as opposed to holding responsible she who went on and repeated what those talking points were saying. >> erin, let me bring you in on this. you heard michael, a laundry list of things they could be asking regarding the investigation but you have susan collins and john mccain willing to endorse john kerry. that may be their sincere and honest opinion but why not answer i'm focused on benghazi and the investigation and not potential nominees for secretary of state, both eager to say they would support john kerry. why? >> well, look. republicans are still looking to punish the administration over benghazi. we know that. republicans think that president obama got a pass on benghazi during the election so there's some of that but one thing i would point out to you from senator collins' remarks is that she is still looking for answers from susan rice about a time in 1998 when she was in charge of th
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)